India Since Independence: An Analytic Growth Narrative PDF

India Since Independence: An Analytic Growth Narrative J. Bradford DeLong [email protected] http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/ July 2001 Abstract Before the...

India Since Independence: An Analytic Growth Narrative J. Bradford DeLong [email protected] http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/ July 2001 Abstract Before the late 1980s the economic growth rate of independent India looks ordinary: India's rate of growth of output per worker is square in the middle of the world's distribution, and the values of its proximate determinants of growth are ordinary too. This puts a bound on the growth-retarding effects of the "license raj" generated by prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru's attraction to Fabian socialism and central planning. Since the late 1980s India does not look ordinary at all. It has been one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, with a doubling time for average GDP per capita of only sixteen years. Conventional wisdom traces the growth acceleration neoliberal economic reforms implemented under the government of Narasimha Rao. Yet the timing of the growth acceleration suggests an earlier start for the current Indian boom under the government of Rajiv Gandhi.  2 I. Introduction How useful is the modern theory of economic growth? Does it provide a satisfactory framework for analyzing the wealth and poverty of nations? This paper investigates this question by attempting to apply modern growth theory to the case of the economic development of India over the past half-century. Whether growth theory turns out to be useful—whether valid, interesting, and non-obvious insights are generated—is left as an exercise to the reader. I should note at the start that this is a hazardous exercise: I know a fair amount about growth theory. I know relatively little about India. The general rule is that one should try to write about subjects where one is knowledgeable, rather than about subjects where one is not. Whether the exercise I undertake in this paper yields useful insights is not for me to judge. The conventional narrative of India's post-World War II economic history begins with a disastrous wrong turn by India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, toward Fabian socialism, central planning, and an unbelievable quantity of bureaucratic red tape. This "license raj" strangled the private sector and led to rampant corruption and massive inefficiency. As a result, India stagnated until bold neoliberal economic reforms triggered by the currency crisis of 1991, and implemented by the government of Prime Minister Narasimha Rao and Finance Minister Manmohan Singh, unleashed its current wave of rapid economic growth--growth at a pace that promises to double average productivity levels and living standards in India every sixteen years.  3 Yet if you look at the growth performance of India during its first post-independence generation under the Nehru Dynasty in the context of the general cross-country pattern, India does not appear to be an exceptional country. Its rate of economic growth appears average. Moreover, its values of the proximate determinants of growth appear average as well. Simple growth theory tells us that the proximate determinants of growth are (a) the share of investment in GDP (to capture the effort being made to build up the capital stock), (b) the rate of population growth (to capture how much of investment effort has to be devoted to simply equipping a larger population with the infrastructure and other capital needed to maintain the current level of productivity, and (c) the gap between output per worker and the world's best practice (to capture the gap between the country's current status and its steady-state growth path, and also to capture the magnitude of the productivity gains possible through acquisition of the world's best-practice technologies). Neither India's investment share nor its rate of population growth are in any sense unusually poor for an economy in India's relative position as of independence. The fact that pre-1990 India appears "normal," at least as far as the typical pattern of post-World War II economic growth is concerned, places limits on the size of the damage done to Indian economic growth since World War II by the Nehru dynasty's attraction to Fabian socialism and central planning. India between independence and 1990 was not East Asia as far as economic growth was concerned, to be sure. But it was not Africa either.  4 Table 1: Indian Rates of Economic Growth Period 1950-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 Annual Real GDP Growth 3.7% 5.9% 6.2% Annual Real GDP per Capita Growth 1.5% 3.8% 4.4% Source: IMF. One possibility is that the constraints placed on growth by the inefficiencies of the Nehru dynasty's "license raj" were simply par for the course in the post-World War II world: that only exceptional countries were able to avoid inefficiencies like those of the license raj. A second possibility is that the failure of economic policies in terms of promoting efficiency was in large part offset by successes in mobilizing resources: India in the first post-World War II decades had a relatively high savings rate for a country in its development position. Yet a third possibility is that the destructive effects of inefficiency-generating policies were offset by powerful advantages--whether a large chunk of the population literate in what was rapidly becoming the world's lingua franca, cultural patterns that placed a high value on education, the benefits of democracy in promoting accountability and focusing politicians' attention on their constituents' welfare, or some other factors--that should and would with better policies have made India one of the fastest growing economies of the world not just in the 1990s but in previous decades as well. If Indian economic growth before the past decade appears more or less ordinary, no one believes that Indian economic growth in the past decade and a half is anything like  5 ordinary. In the 1990s India has been one of the fastest growing economies in the world. At the growth pace of the 1990s, Indian average productivity levels double every sixteen years. If the current pace of growth can be maintained, sixty-six years will bring India to the real GDP per capita level of the United States today. The contrast between the pace of growth in the 1990s and the pace of growth before 1980--with a doubling time of fifty years, and an expected approach to America's current GDP per capita level not in 2066 but in 2250--is extraordinary. Moreover, this acceleration in Indian economic growth has not been "immiserizing." Poverty has not fallen as fast as anyone would wish, and regional and other dimensions of inequality have grown in the 1990s. But it is not the case that India's economic growth miracle is being fueled by the further absolute impoverishment of India's poor. Ahluwalis (1999) quotes Tendulkar (1997) as finding a 7% decline in the urban and a 20% decline in the rural poverty gap1 between 1983 and 1988, followed by a further 20% decline in both the urban and rural poverty gaps between 1988 and 1994. According to the Indian Planning Commission, the years between 1994 and 1999 saw a further 20% decline in the nation’s poverty gap, leaving the best estimate of the proportional poverty gap today at 54 percent of its value back in 1983. What are the sources of India's recent acceleration in economic growth? Conventional wisdom traces them to policy reforms at the start of the 1990s. In the words of Das (2000), the miracle began with a bang: 1 The percentage gap between the expenditure levels of all poor households, and what the expenditure levels of all poor households would be if they were pulled up to the poverty line.  6 …in July 1991… with the announcement of sweeping liberalization by the minority government of P.V. Narasimha Rao… opened the economy… dismantled import controls, lowered customs duties, and devalued the currency… virtually abolished licensing controls on private investment, dropped tax rates, and broke public sector monopolies…. [W]e felt as though our second independence had arrived: we were going to be free from a rapacious and domineering state…" Yet the aggregate growth data tells us that the acceleration of economic growth began earlier, in the early or mid-1980s, long before the exchange crisis of 1991 and the shift of the government of Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh toward neoliberal economic reforms. Thus apparently the policy changes in the mid- and late-1980s under the last governments of the Nehru dynasty were sufficient to start the acceleration of growth, small as those policy reforms appear in retrospect. Would they have just produced a short-lived flash in the pan--a decade or so of fast growth followed by a slowdown--in the absence of the further reforms of the 1990s? My hunch is that the answer is "yes." In the absence of the second wave of reforms in the 1990s it is unlikely that the rapid growth of the second half of the 1980s could be sustained. But hard evidence to support such a strong counterfactual judgment is lacking.  7 II. Pre-1990 Economic Growth Simple Growth Theory The simplest of the theoretical approaches to understanding economic growth derived from Solow (1956) begins with an aggregate production function: α Yt  Kt  (1) = (Et )1−α Lt  Lt  Real GDP per worker (Y/L) is equal to the product of two terms. The first term is the economy's average capital-labor ratio (K/L) raised to the power less than one, α, that parameterizes how rapidly diminishing returns to investment set in. The second term is the economy's level of total factor productivity, written for convenience' sake as the efficiency of labor E raised to the (1−α) power. In this approach, there are three factors that are proximate determinants of economic growth. The first, labeled s, is the share of the economy's output devoted to building up its capital stock: the investment-to-GDP ratio. Higher shares of investment in GDP increase the speed with which the economy's capital stock grows, and raise productivity by increasing the economy's capital-labor ratio. (Moreover, in more complicated models in which technology is embodied in capital or in which learning-by-doing is an important source of productivity growth, higher investment raises output by more than just the private marginal product of capital. See DeLong and Summers (1991)). The second proximate determinant, labeled n, is the population growth rate. A higher rate of growth of population means that more of the economy's resources must be devoted to  8 infrastructure and capital accumulation just to stay in the same place. It is expensive to equip each additional worker with the economy's current average level of capital per worker, and to provide the extra infrastructure to connect him or her with the economy. In an economy with a disembodied efficiency-of-labor growth rate g and a rate of depreciation of capital equipment δ, over time the capital-output ratio will tend to head for its steady state value κ* of: s (2) κ* = n + g +δ At this value of the capital-output ratio, the proportional rate of growth of the capital stock g(k) is: s s (3) g(k) = −δ = −δ = n + g κ*  s   (n + g + δ ) and is equal to the proportional growth rate of output g(y), so once the capital-output ratio is at its steady-state value it will remain there. Thus a higher level of the population growth rate n reduces the steady-state value of the capital-output ratio. It makes the economy less capital intensive and poorer because a greater share of investment is going to equip an enlarged workforce, and less remains to support capital deepening. The third of the proximate determinants of economic growth is the economy's initial level of output per worker. The initial level captures how far the economy is away from its  9 steady-state growth path, and thus what are the prospects for rapid catch-up growth as the economy converges to its steady-state growth path. (In more sophisticated models, the initial level of output per worker also captures the technology gap vis-à-vis the world's potential best practice. It thus indicates the scope for growth driven by the successful transfer of technology from outside to the economy.) Under the approximations set out by Mankiw, Romer, and Weil (1992), the economy's average growth rate of output per worker, g(y/l), over a period from some initial year 0 to year t will be given by: ∆ g(y / l) = (1 − e ) × ∆s − (1 − e ) × −λt − λt ∆n − (1 − e ) × ∆ − λt (4) ln(Y0 / L0 ) t (1 − α ) t (1 − α ) _ _ s n + g +δ t where capital ∆s indicate deviations from the world's average values, where lines over variables indicate that they are world average values, and where λ is a function of the other parameters of the model given by: (5) λ = (1 − α )(n + g + δ ) Thus this simple growth theory suggests an obvious regression to investigate the worldwide pattern of economic growth. In the cross-country sample, simply regress the average growth rate of output per worker (g(y/l)) on the share of investment in GDP (s), on the population growth rate (n), and on the log of output per worker in 1960 (ln(Y0/L0)). Such a regression run for 85 economies in the Summers-Heston Penn World  10 Table database for which data from 1960 to 1992 are available produces the estimated equation:2 (6) g(y/l) = + 0.149 s - 0.406 n - 0.007 ln(Y0/L0) SEE = 0.012 n = 85 (0.023) (0.204) (0.002) R2 = 0.431 The coefficients on these variables have natural interpretations as composed of terms-- like (1-e−λτ)/t--that capture the theoretical prediction that differences in growth rates diminish over time as countries converge to their Solow steady-state growth paths, and terms--like 1/((1-α)s)--that captures the immediate output-boosting benefit of that factor. This estimated equation accounts for more than 40% of the variance in 1960-1992 growth rates for these 85 countries with just three simple proximate determinants of growth. It is, however, not possible to have confidence that this equation captures a "structural" relationship. The population growth rate n is determined by where the country is in the demographic transition, and is thus highly likely to be unaffected by any growth- influencing omitted variables or residual disturbances (see Livi-Bacci (1992)). But omitted variables that slow down growth will also lead to a low level of initial output per worker: omitted variables will thus reduce the absolute value of the coefficient on initial output per worker below its "structural" value. And there is little reason to believe that the investment share is exogenous: it may be functioning as much as an indicator for 2 Regression run using the Heston and Summers Penn World Table, version 5.6; data file at. See Summers and Heston (1991).  11 residual factors left out of the regression as as a direct booster of production via a higher capital stock.3 Average India? However, the non-structural nature of this regression is not disturbing. For our purposes the most interesting factor is that from the perspective of the regression above there is very little that appears unusual about India's economic growth between independence and the late 1980s. In cross-country growth experience of 85 countries from 1960 to 1992, India lies smack in the middle of the scatter of world growth rate, as Figure 1 shows. 3 However, for an argument that investment shares are close to exogenous in practice even if not in theory-- that shifts in investment have powerful effects on growth no matter what their causes--see DeLong and Summers (1991).  12 Figure 1: Actual and Predicted 1960-1992 Output per Worker Growth 0.07 0.06 0.05 Growth Rate Actual 0.04 0.03 0.02 INDIA 0.01 0 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01.00.01.02.03.04.05.06.07 Growth Rate Predicted P